Dismissed

Matsay Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIC/9392/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the writ petition filed by a co-operative society seeking diversion of village drain water from its fishery pond. The Court held that the District Magistrate had no perversity in rejecting the request as the alternative discharge point was topographically infeasible, advising the petitioner to pursue civil remedies if the lease was frustrated.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the petitioner was directed to pursue civil remedies.

Matsay Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9392 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Matsay Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aijaz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents - 1 to 5 and have perused the record.

¶6

The petitioner is a co-operative society which was granted a fishery lease of a pond bearing Plot no. 575, area 7.281 hectare. The said patta is valid up to 1.3.2025.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that the drain of the village is flowing into the pond of which the petitioner has patta, as a consequence whereof fishes are getting affected and, therefore, the fishing right conferred upon the petitioner stands frustrated. The prayer of the petitioner, thus is that a direction be issued to the respondents to divert the flow of dirty water away from the pond as per the earlier report.

¶8

A perusal of the record would reveal that the prayer of the petitioner was under consideration of the District Magistrate. On 22.2.2020, the District Magistrate, Baghpat passed the impugned order, whereby he rejected the request of the petitioner for diversion of the flow of dirty water of the village, away from the pond of which the petitioner had fishery lease.

¶9

The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed without due consideration to the material on record because there was an alternative discharge point available for the dirty water and if that alternative point had been accepted by the administration, fishery right of the petitioner would not have been frustrated.

¶10

The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in writ jurisdiction because from the order impugned, it appears that the District Magistrate had examined two flow options for the drain water. First option was pond at plot no. 575 of which the petitioner had fishery lease and the second was pond at plot no. 228. Pond at plot no. 228 was found not a feasible option because it was located at a higher gradient (incline) and, therefore, drain water could not

¶11

have traveled to it as there could be no flow from lower level to higher level. Accordingly, District Magistrate, after examining all aspects, rejected the prayer of the petitioner.

¶12

We do not find any perversity or defect in the reasoning adopted by the District Magistrate to reject the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order and direct the administration to change the flow of drain water. In case petitioner's fishery lease is frustrated on account of flow of such water, he is entitled to take recourse to such other civil remedies as may be advised.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-

Matsay Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matsay Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyanendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dr Amit Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munna Chauhan Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Shyam Prakash Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Harsh Enterprises Vs Director .Nrhm. Govt. and 6 Others

Renu Singh Vs Life Insurance Corporation and 2 Others